AuthorTopic: When was the last time the schools in the T14 changed? (Read 4423 times)

There's been a lot of ink spilled on this board about ther prospects of Vanderbilt moving ahead of GULC in the rankings (especially considering the new PT considerations US News will be using). My question is, if Vanderbilt does creep into the T14 (and GULC creeps out), how long ago did the last change in the schools that make up the T14 take place?

There was a USNWR ranking in 1987. This is the first ranking, despite the common misconception that the first ranking was in 1990. The first ANNUAL ranking was in 1990. I could not find any ranking in the period between 1987 and 1990.

In that initial ranking, Yale and Harvard were tied. Michigan was 3rd. UT Austin was in the T14 (#11), and Cornell was edged out at #15. Since 1990, however, the 14 schools in the present T14 have remained in the T14.

There's been a lot of ink spilled on this board about ther prospects of Vanderbilt moving ahead of GULC in the rankings (especially considering the new PT considerations US News will be using). My question is, if Vanderbilt does creep into the T14 (and GULC creeps out), how long ago did the last change in the schools that make up the T14 take place?

I don't particularly see USNews wanting to upset the balance all that much, even though their methodologies favor smaller programs like Cornell and Vanderbilt over larger ones like GULC and UT. What we're aiming for at Vandy is recognition that Vanderbilt has a truly national program that is now on par with schools that have traditionally been in the lower T-14. This would effectively expand the top group of truly national schools (which IMO is what most people recognize by "T-14") to a T-15, with GULC, Vanderbilt or another school holding anchor. I think UCLA and UT are right there as well, but the idea would be that rather than bumping GULC down the rankings we're identifying a larger number of truly national programs (whether there are 15, 17, whatever).

I do think the changing economy is going to hit some schools harder than others this year, and that the newest available data should be looked at to see how different programs are weathering the shrinking biglaw job prospects. We'll know more by February but it seems like Vandy has been doing just fine... we're one of the smallest programs with one of the widest geographic dispersals and increasing recognition that our incoming gpa/LSAT numbers are on par w/ T-14 schools.

I think that there is really a T10 that has truly national recognition/placement. The 10-20 are all very good schools, with great numbers and great placement; however, they are in a somewhat separate league than the T10. This isn't to say that they're not great, because they are. Many are truly fantastic, proving to be some of the biggest feeders in their respective regions. However, I think that the lower T14 has more in common with the lower teens than it does with the more upper T14.

Obviously there are exceptions to this general trend, but it seems as though you can speak of a T10 and a t11-20 as two distinct tiers.

I think that the T14 has gotten into some kind of feedback loop. Their US News ranking ensures that they keep getting the students with the best numbers who get the highest paying jobs which in turn fuels higher US News rankings. I think that if a school enters or leaves it, it will have less to do with the merits of the school than US News's desire to do something dramatic.

I think that the T14 has gotten into some kind of feedback loop. Their US News ranking ensures that they keep getting the students with the best numbers who get the highest paying jobs which in turn fuels higher US News rankings. I think that if a school enters or leaves it, it will have less to do with the merits of the school than US News's desire to do something dramatic.

This certainly is the case. Doesn't USNWR realize that, by making 'reputation reviews' of professionals/academics worth 40% of the total ranking score, schools are bound to stay relatively concentrated in their spot, especially at the upper end of the scale?

This certainly is the case. Doesn't USNWR realize that, by making 'reputation reviews' of professionals/academics worth 40% of the total ranking score, schools are bound to stay relatively concentrated in their spot, especially at the upper end of the scale?

I'm sure it realizes it, but doesn't care. I don't think that having a heavily-weighted reputation metric is necessarily a bad thing - sure, it's self-perpetuating, but reputations normally are self-perpetuating. I have a bigger problem with the fact that the professionals/academics are asked about schools they know nothing about.

This certainly is the case. Doesn't USNWR realize that, by making 'reputation reviews' of professionals/academics worth 40% of the total ranking score, schools are bound to stay relatively concentrated in their spot, especially at the upper end of the scale?

I'm sure it realizes it, but doesn't care. I don't think that having a heavily-weighted reputation metric is necessarily a bad thing - sure, it's self-perpetuating, but reputations normally are self-perpetuating. I have a bigger problem with the fact that the professionals/academics are asked about schools they know nothing about.

At least with the academics, a lot of them keep on top of what's going on at other schools and are familiar with new developments. The Deans of Stanford, NYU, GULC, Vanderbilt, CUNY and a few others have been working together the last couple of years with the Carnegie Foundation to revise law school curriculums, with the hopes that most academics at those schools are more aware of other programs. And within specialty areas, most academics know who's on top in their respective field and definitely note movement from one program to another. I don't know how much that plays into overall reputations, but it's definitely helped boost our Environmental and Regulatory Law Programs. Once you have a reputation for a strong area, more scholars are going to look at your faculty as a place they'd like to end up... it's at least feasible that a school can break the cyclical nature of reputation by pulling in top talent from other institutions that have traditionally been top-10 programs. Unfortunately a lot of this goes on outside the view of the student body, and I hear very little about it except what trickles down from the faculty members I work with. Professionals are a different matter, though.